Fatima M.
During week eleven, we discussed Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, which is a practical guide on ethical living. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle preaches a life devoted to pursuing knowledge rather than a life devoted to politics or pleasure. This blog post however will focus primarily on Book I of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, which deals with happiness, the main end of man. Our class discussion started off by tackling the claim that every action we partake in aims at a certain good: “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.” Hence, since everything we do is done for some purpose that we consider good then the first principle of ethics needs to be regarding the purpose of action: the good. We then established that happiness is the highest good, is “something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action.” However, we could not establish what exactly constitutes happiness for happiness is hard to define. Happiness is subjective and since no one has the same definition for happiness, Aristotle lays out the three most common ones as:
Furthermore, Aristotle believes it is hard for one form of good to exist because we ascribe good to many different things unlike Plato who suggests that there is a single form of good. For instance, things can be good for their own sake or be good as means to achieving a different sort of good. Also, there is the ideal good that should be the end to which all other goods are means (which according to Aristotle is happiness). Therefore, Aristotle decided to define happiness in terms of its function. As we all know for everything there is an optimal way of action, which is characteristic of that thing, and that optimal way of action is its good. The function of man would be to live as a rational being and to act wisely. However, being wise doesn’t suffice for a man to be good. The good for man according to Aristotle is an “activity of his soul in accordance with his virtue.” This concept supports the common view that to live well, one has to strive to excellence in every part of his/her life. And for humans, excellence is to live virtuously. Aristotle advocates wealth, political influence, friends, and material possessions that are all very desirable external conditions. They are desirable in the sense that the executions of many virtuous actions require these types of things as tools. It is easier for someone with money, power, and influence to do good than it is for someone without. He also believes man must have the goods of the body as in he must be highborn and good-looking. So in order to achieve the ultimate end, which is happiness, one has to practice virtuous acts consistently, possess the desirable external conditions, and have the goods of the body. Our class discussion also included:
Dear Students,
The final quiz is up and will remain open until the day of the final exam. Good luck with your studies! CF Dear Students,
This is to confirm that we will have an extra class tomorrow (Monday) at 1pm in West Hall B08. The final quiz will be up and running this evening. I'll try not to make it too stressful! best wishes, CF Shadi Chamseddine & Marc Daniels The Republic by Plato Week Eleven’s presentation of Part VII, The Philosopher Ruler, of Plato’s The Republic began with Socrates being reminded of his promise to explain how his ideal State should be run. He states that the only hope for realizing this state is if the political power is given to philosophers, as they would make great rulers. After revealing his statement, he proceeds to define that philosophers are people of wisdom, different from the people who currently share the title. Philosophers should never settle for a simple answer and always ask for more. This shows that Socrates believes that philosophers are crucial to society, and goes on to differentiate them from the pseudo-intellectuals who are lovers of sights and sounds which claim expertise in the subject of beauty. After defining these terms and introducing the reader to the concept of philosophers as rulers, the theory of Forms is introduced. Forms are eternal and universal ideas that are rigid and do not change, such as The Good, The Beautiful and The Equal, are good in every single way. Forms, however, are not tangible and cannot be seen and they make the things around us into what they are. For example, anything that is fluid is only fluid because it participates in the Form of the Fluid, and anything beautiful participates in the Form of the Beauty. The difference, Socrates says, is that philosophers recognize and apprehend these forms, while lovers of sights and sounds do not. Although lovers of sights and sounds claim to know about fluid things, for example, they cannot claim to know about the Form of the Fluid. He further explains that since only philosophers can understand and acknowledge forms, they are the only ones who can have knowledge, while others such as the lovers of sights and sounds can only have opinions. When questioned about his claim that only philosophers can have knowledge, Socrates brings up and explains a very intriguing, yet confusing picture of how things should be divided. He decides that classes should be divided into three groups: of what is, of what is not, and of what both is and is not. Only “of what is” is complete knowable, while “of what is not” is the object of ignorance, and “what both is and is not” are opinions or beliefs, which fall between knowledge and ignorance. Socrates says that the Forms are the only things that consists of the “of what is” class, noting that only the Form of the Red is completely red for example. This idea causes some controversy as in the case of beauty and good, both are subjective to the observer. Accepting this idea “of what is” is hard to do, since it can be debated that someone who is beautiful is suspect to aging and dying. This beautiful person is also suspect to being not beautiful at the same time, and with the possibility that they might change over time. As with everything, this person will change over time and thus so will the Form of the Beautiful in that sense. However, Socrates believes that knowledge does not change and these Forms are rigid and ever present, which does not apply to the real world and only to what is eternally stable and unchanging. Socrates further supports his point by defining what characteristics are required in a philosopher. Socrates believes, that given philosophers are the only ones who possess knowledge, they are best fit to rule the state. If these philosophers prove to be virtuous, which they are relative to everyone else, Glaucon agrees that they are in the best position to run the state. As stated earlier, a philosopher is also a lover of knowledge and his soul must be “just” in order to qualify. Although Adeimantus has his doubts, Socrates goes on further stating that philosophers should be courageous, high minded and quick learners, and hopefully one day oppose the words of their families that lead to their corruption and loss of just soul. This supports the statement that all true philosophers are virtuous men, due to their association with the Forms that determine virtues, such as the Good and the Beauty. Philosophers are also virtuous due to their intrinsic desires of truth and knowledge, as opposed to extrinsic desires such as money and wealth, which rules out the possibly to cheat, lie and steal, actions that go hand in hand with all politicians.
The presentation ended with the explanation of the analogy (simile) of the Sun. After being urged by Glaucon to define goodness, Socrates fails and instead reverts to the simile of the Sun, stating that the Sun is “the child of goodness” proposing that just as the sun illuminates, allowing the eye to see, so does the idea of goodness, illuminating the intelligible. Thus we can say that, as the sun generates everything in life, the Form of the Good generates all the ideals in life. Blogpost by: Ahmad Mashmoushi and Bassel Safa THE REPUBLIC BY PLATO: BOOK II (357a- 376c) During our make-up session, we began with Socrates’ defense of the true nature of justice. However, Glaucon and Adiamantus argue against Socrates’ statement by saying that three types of good exist: good for itself such as pleasure, good for its consequences, and finally good as a means and an end. What Glaucon really wants is for Socrates to demonstrate that justice is alluring, and that it has a place among the most astounding class of attractive things. Those craved both for their own purpose, and their results. To prove his point that justice is a good only for its consequences and to play his role as the advocate of the devil, Glaucon lays a three step process. The first step points out the origin of justice. The young companion believes that justice stems from a social contract aimed at preventing one from suffering injustice without having the ability to take revenge. It is a mutual agreement to avoid being harmed by others because harming is good but being harmed is worse. Equity is not something rehearsed for its own purpose but rather something in which one participates out of trepidation and shortcoming. The second step resides in the fact that humans practice justice against their free will. Glaucon stresses on his point by giving the example of the Gyges ring: whoever wears that ring outmatches the laws of justice imposed by isolating its consequences. He also claims that if this legendary ring falls into the hands of a just man, he will become unjust. He would enjoy the greater part of his materialistic, eager for power, and suggestively indecent inclinations. He will then become powerful and very successful. Consequently, no one is just because it is desirable, but rather because of the punishment one would have to endure for injustice: its consequence. Finally, he describes a situation in which one perfectly just man and another perfectly unjust man seem antithetical in public. Indeed, the first is cursed with ill-reputation and misfortune, whereas the other is a successful and loved villain who bribes the gods to avoid punishment in the afterlife. This would lead to the death of the perfectly just man while his perfect opposite will live on to become the ruler of the city. Thus, according to Glaucon, an unjust man’s life is more pleasant than the one of a just man. Thus, by that injustice, is superior to justice. Something worth noticing is the parallelism with Socrates’ fate and Glaucon’s rejection of all forms of religion, tradition... which do not value justice for itself and as a consequence Although these arguments seem well constructed and convincing, Socrates being Socrates, never believing that injustice is better than justice, begins his quest to refute Glaucon and Adiamantus’ claims. He first suggests a new method to examine justice. First, justice should be found on a large scale such as the city and then applied analogously on the individual. If we should watch a city coming into being in speech would we also see its justice coming into being, and its injustice? (369a) But in order to do so, the philosopher must first construct the perfect state. In fact, Socrates believes that the pillars of society are built by the mutual interests and needs of the people: food, shelter and clothing. Hence, they would need five classes and thus five people: producers; merchants and marketers; sailors and ship builders; retail trailers; and wage earners. This division of labor is best accomplished by applying specialization. Each individual does what he is naturally suited to do, and only that. This status of the city is qualified as “healthy” by Socrates but as a “pig state” by Glaucon who believes that more luxuries should be added to the new ideal state. Consequently, the quantity of different individuals, important to maintain this complex city, starts to increment. We now have cooks, beauticians, workers, specialists, and others. However, a problem arises: the land will become too small to sustain such an audience. What would they do? You guessed it: they go to war, as any Greek civilization would do. The land, I suppose, that used to be adequate to feed the population we had then will cease to be adequate. ... Then we'll have to seize some of our neighbors' land if we're to have enough pasture and ploughland. And won't our neighbors want to seize part of ours as well, if they too have surrendered themselves to the endless acquisition of money and have overstepped the limit of their necessities? ... Then our next step will be war. Socrates, Glaucon and Adiamantus now need to decide who will rule the “fevered city”. They first conclude that a ruler should possess perception, speed, strength, wisdom, be harsh on enemies but benevolent to the people of the state, and balanced in their spirits… Socrates makes the analogy with a shepherd’s dog who then realizes that philosophers have the same characteristics: they both love who/what they know and hate who/what they don’t. We should applaud Socrates for this big leap from dogs to philosophers. He then goes on to conclude that philosophers are the ones worth the throne and should rule the city. They must be spirited ... yet surely they must be gentle to their own people and harsh to the enemy. If they aren't they won't wait around for others to destroy the city but will do it themselves first. ... A pedigree dog naturally has a character of this sort. ... Surely this is a refined quality in its nature and one that is truly philosophical. By Myriam Jerdak and Bachir Masri In week 9, we covered the novel of Sophocles which depicts the most famous incestuous story ever recorded in history. It is about a boy that was cast away from his parents and ends up unknowingly killing his father and marrying his mother. Although most readers today know the story before reading the play, the Greeks in that time period were not aware of its outcome. The effect of tragedy is therefore amplified. In many parts, Sophocles’ work shows double meanings which only become apparent at the end of the play. There is a difference between this form of classic play and modern dramas such as Shakespearian plays. In fact, Shakespeare was greatly criticized for not respecting all the rules of drama written by Aristotle. The rules have to do with the three unities, which are time place and action. The time of the play has to be the same amount of time as the actions in the play which is not the case Shakespearian plays. In Sophocles there is no change of scenes and the only action which is happening is trying to find the truth. The story starts with the citizens complaining to their king Oedipus about the plague. He replies that his sufferings are greater and sends off his brother to ask the Oracle for a solution. The Oracle then tells him that the answer lies in the discovery and punishment of the murderer of King Laius of Thebes. The character of Oedipus is complex: is he driven by fear? Arrogance? Is he driven by the desire to do well for his city or for himself? These things are not as clear as one would think. His arrogance appears through his way of addressing his people. He doesn’t hesitate to make himself appear as a god towards the chorus. For example, on page 245 he says, “you pray for the gods? Let me grant your prayers”. The pride of Oedipus leads him to pompously take the place of the gods. Overall Sophocles’ play is not exactly a justification or an indictment of Oedipus. Indeed, he seems like a typical Greek hero wanting greatness. He is faithful for his city and shows courage. At the same time, he is selfish and arrogant: he mentions that he would have been able to solve the mystery had he been present at that time. No I’ll start again myself, I’ll bring it all to light myself. Apollo is right and so are you Creon to turn our back to the murdered man. Now you have me to fight for you […] for my own sake I’ll rid us of this corruption. p. 167 In addition, the pronoun “I” is mentioned repeatedly in his speeches which could support this idea. Moreover, by defending Laius, he is indirectly defending himself: whoever murdered Laius might do the same thing to him. He therefore points out that he is serving himself primarily. Oedipus in his speech to the citizens curses both Laius’s killer and anyone siding with him, but he also curses himself (244-253). This “selflessness” he wants to display is not inconsistent with his personality: he is a great king, and it’s his duty to take responsibility for his subjects. Although he may seem selfless at times, his glory depends on his relationship with the people. What drives our interest is Sophocles’ work is his use of irony. The curse Oedipus lays on the murderer and then on himself (244-253) proves that idea: he is in fact cursing himself twice. ...so I will fight for him as if he was my father, stop at nothing nothing, search the world lay my hands on the man who shed his blood. p. 274 This line is also ironic since Laius is in fact Oedipus’ father, but tragedy lies in the fact that he doesn’t know the truth. Later, Oedipus summoned the blind prophet Tiresias seeking his wisdom but he didn’t reveal anything at first. Tiresias knows what will come and sees Oedipus’s need to know the future as futile since his destiny is inevitable. Out of anger Oedipus accuses Tiresias of being the murderer and mocks his blindness which is quite ironic: the blind man is the one who “sees” the future (which no one can see), and Oedipus is “blind” to his fate. Oedipus also believes he solved with his own mind the riddle of the sphinx. He thinks it’s his own accomplishment, however Tiresias knows it was his destiny: his greatest fortune would at the same time be his ruin and it would lead him to his doom which shows any human attempt for greatness is meant to fail. The irony is increased further by the fact that later, Oedipus is blinded. ... blind who now has eyes, beggar who now is rich, he will grope his way towards a foreign soil a stick tapping before him step by step. (517) Oedipus is curious about his parentage because of the rumors that had been spread through the years. At various points in the story we think he has found out the truth. In fact, he discovers the truth partially when he knows he may be guilty, but doesn’t realize Laius is his real father until much later. He also finds out his adoptive parents are not his biological family but doesn’t know who his real parents are. The play is quite pessimistic: according to the chorus, the tale of Oedipus is an example of what being human really is like. We get to a point in tragedy where it is better to be dead than to be alive. Death is a way to be “freed from pain at last”. Oedipus is the example of humanity, once you’re born it’s tragic. No matter how great you are you will fall because of your human mortality. Typically, Greeks view life as a tragedy, and an early death at a young age seems preferable than going through old age. The play doesn’t seem to revolve around the character as much as it revolves the fact that we cannot escape our fate no matter what we do. Now as we keep our watch and wait the final day, count no man happy till he dies, free of pain at last. (Oedipus the King, (1678–1684) All heroes were symbols of what human can be. The idea that living is constant dying and that in order to be dying we need to be living is prevalent. Every aspect in life has some sort of duality: death and life are the same thing and to create anything new you need to destroy something. Perseverance and conflict keep the city vibrant and strong. In fact, to preserve a city’s glory and strength, there has to be tension and competition between leaders to make sure the strongest of them rules. Democracy, science, and sports have all been developed by the Greeks that believe competition is what allows us to cross our limits. Creon’s speech stands out because of his persuasion method which reminds us of the speeches in Thucydides: he tries to rationally convince Oedipus that he would have no reason to overthrow him. He has all the advantages of being a king without its responsibilities. Oedipus replies to the speech in an emotional irrational manner. He is blinded by fear and realizes if accusations towards him are right he would have to die. Towards the end of the play Oedipus asks Creon to give him death but the rational cautious Creon says he wants to consult the oracle first for advice. Oedipus’s transition from a prideful king to a suffering cursed man led him to lose his power. Creon’s way of addressing him changes and he no longer considers him his equal. His human greatness is meaningless in front of death. Jocasta gives an anti religious speech, she herself having had to kill her baby to prove that her son never killed his father like the prophecy had predicted. This is ironic because the prophecy eventually comes true. Her view of religion is influenced by her personal experience. Irony also appears when Oedipus says that “fortune” is his mother as Jocasta leaves the room. On p.310 we read: “They are dying, the old oracles sent to Laius, now our masters strike them of the rolls. Nowhere Apollo’s golden glory now- the gods, the gods go down.” When Jocasta starts to describe the way Laius was killed, Oedipus starts realizing that he might be the murderer. He didn’t tell Jocasta that he had in fact murdered someone at the same time at the same place. It is commonly stated that Oedipus killed Laius in self defense however the text doesn’t allow us to view it in that way. We read,
“I paid him back with interest […] I killed them all” (p.206, l.891). This citation indicates that he was much more violent towards King Laius and his entourage. Oedipus is indifferent towards the incident, because in his point of view his royal status allows him to kill whoever offends him. Later in the story, Oedipus is informed by a messenger about the death of his father Polybus, king of Corinth. Hearing this news Jocasta is even more convinced that the prophecies are worthless since Polybus died of a natural death. The irony in the text relies in the fact that the prophecy remains unchanged. Moreover, Oedipus still worries that he might marry his mother as indicated by the repetition of the word “fear” (p.215). The messenger then informs Oedipus that Merope and Polybus aren’t his parents, he explains that he was found as a baby by a shepherd. The scars on Oedipus’s ankles are evidence that his story is true. The name Oedipus in fact comes from the Greek “oidipous” means swollen foot. The scars are indicative of a common ritual called “exposure” to get rid of babies back then. Jocasta realizes who Oedipus is through the messenger when she is told that he was given to the messenger by a servant of Laius. In many ways it seems surprising that Oedipus would take so much time to figure out that he was the murderer of Laius and the husband of his mother. One might ask himself how a Greek hero who had solved the riddle of the sphinx did not realize that the events stated by the prophecy had occurred. Could it be that Oedipus was in denial? Was his blindness to the truth indicative of his future physical blindness? The blinding scene is undoubtedly one of the key scenes in the book. The blinding happens quite quickly as an irrational response to finding out about the truth. Another reason Oedipus blinds himself is to prevent his eyes from seeing the evil he has caused. He feels guilt which leads him to be unable to cope with the world, and cannot face the truth. The Greek belief is that we carry the damage we have caused in life to the underworld. He therefore decides to avoid the sight of Jocasta and Laius in the underworld when the time comes, he also wants to shield himself from the emotions displayed in the eyes of his family and his people when they process the information. The scene where he blinds himself reminds us of the Cyclops scene in the Odyssey since it is quite graphic and describes how he sticks a pin in his eye. This act is both a punishment and a proof of recognition of his true fate. This fate he only “sees” while blind shows he has gained inner wisdom, and accepted his destiny. Oedipus recognizes his wrongs and seems to somehow apologize to the others he had accused of the murder he had committed. Plato differs from Oedipus in the fact that we’re moving from stories and drama telling to philosophy. Philosophy from the Latin words “philos” (love) and “sofia” (wisdom) means the love of wisdom. Plato does not put emphasize on the narration although the story does offer a certain contextual approach to things. The main aim while reading Plato is to pick up on arguments and finding the theses, the main purpose of which the debater is arguing for. Something important to keep in mind is that when we are reading Plato we are indirectly witnessing the beginning or philosophy and the development of a debating method. Philosophy and the process of argumentation had never been studied or discussed before. Many of the aspects that may seem trivial to us that we attribute to scientific reasoning, Plato is developing for the first time. In the book a debate between Socrates and Glaucon discusses justice and the idea of what “good” is. Plato introduces the thesis which the book doesn’t refer to until the end. Justice is a kind of good, although what kind of good justice is and how it usually works is up for debate? The argument of exclusion is often used by Socrates in order to categorize something. A good thing is intrinsically good and is simply good in itself. Simply good in itself and not for other things. An example of something good for it’s consequences is money. Glaucon says that justice exists for its consequences, it doesn’t exist simply for the good of society. Plato’s position is that not only justice is good in itself, it has to have good consequences which makes his position much more interesting. In conclusion, Oedipus ‘s character evolves from a prideful and powerful king to a humbler position towards the end. The tragic side of the story appears through Sophocles’ skill in using irony. Plato differs in the fact that his writing is more philosophically oriented and involves a reflection around justice. The Mytilenian Debate, the Revolution at Corcyra, and the Melian Debate By Feras Nasser and Charbel Tannoury We proceed with our timeline after the unsuccessful revolution of the Mytilenians against the Athenians due to the Mytilenians’ refusal of being turned into another one of Athens’ oppressed conquests. This unsuccessful revolution led to the capture of many Mytilenian prisoners which were then executed by the Athenians with plans to carry on and execute the entire male Mytilenian population while taking the woman and children as Athenian slaves. This decision was then reconsidered the next day by the Athenians themselves for being harsh and brutal since not all of the male population revolted against Athens. Thus this reconsideration led to the agreement that a debate must be held to decide the fate of the Mytilenians. We observe that the key players in this debate are Cleon, son of Cleaenetus, and Diodotus, son of Eucrates. Cleon, who is well known for his violent character, was the one responsible for making the decision of killing the Mytilenians “legal”. In his speech he put a large effort into convincing the people that mass execution is the way to go. He starts by highlighting that the Athenian government exercises superiority by tyranny and not by leniency. He says that passing a motion such as the killing of the Mytilenians and then stepping down from that decision shows weakness and then rephrases it by saying: A city is better off with bad laws, so long as they remain fixed, than with good laws that are constantly being altered. (p. 213) He proceeds to comment about the fact that backing down from this decision will show that the government is controlled by those in the street who think they are smarter than the law and the only way of proving they are is by revolting and committing other crimes, whereas in what he defines to be right, the unintelligent people who don’t question the law and don’t cause much trouble are much easier to control and are more regarded as citizens than the latter. This remark highlights a great contradiction in the fact that the Sophistic ideas he discusses show that Sophism regards intelligence of the people as something bad for a stable government which is very debatable. Moreover, he also says: We statesmen, too, should try to be like them, instead of being carried away by mere cleverness and a desire to show off our intelligence. (p. 213) In other words, this also means that the rulers themselves should dumb it down a notch, which technically is not something you want to hear from rulers of an Empire. He does however make some interesting reasoning concerning the fact of the delay caused by the debate itself and how punishment is best suited when served after the crime immediately. He goes on by showing how it was a terrible choice for the Mytilenians to revolt and that they could have tried again in solving their problems in a “democratic” way. He argues that the people should not feel pity, should not be carried away by clever statements, and be taken away by words of decency. He constantly reminds them that the city will pay a heavy price if leniency is the course to be taken. He sums it all up by saying that if they do not side with him they will be considered, “figuratively”, traitors to their own state. Diodotus, who is not a supporter of the killing of the Mytilenians, went next. He quickly states that a debate about the issue is the right way to go arguing that haste in decisions shows signs of primitive and narrow minds. He goes on contradicting everything Cleon was trying to make clear concerning the way a good citizen should be and how a good state should make its decisions. Ironically he then says that he is not here to contradict previous speakers and says he will focus on the issue at hand. He forwardly states that the problem isn’t whether or not the Mytilenians are guilty but whether or not they (Athenians) are making the right decision. His main argument is that the course they should take is in what is favorable for the state, regardless if it is right or wrong. So if it is in the state’s interest to kill the Mytilenians then that is what they will do. No one commits a crime knowing that they will be caught. That is the argument he uses for showing that the death penalty is not the way to go in this situation since the death penalty has been used for lesser crimes and still people commit the same crimes. Thus fear is not the way to go in this situation since there will definitely be another revolution if execution is carried out. He claims that the temptations of good fortune and wealth make man commit crimes and gives them a boost of self-confidence while doing so. He goes on by saying that their key goal is not to punish the people who revolt, it is rather to provide an environment which does not make them think of revolution in the first place. He finally said that his motion includes the killing of the people in charge of the revolution and allowing the rest to live. The speeches were done and Diodotus’s motion had passed and the key Mytilenian people responsible for the start of the revolution had been put to death. Lastly, the Athenians moved in on Mytilene, took over their navy and assumed control over their land, especially the island of Lesbos. Corcyra was an island under weak military Athenian control. The Spartans wanted to move in and take over. The Corinthians released back prisoners to Corcyra with a mission to bring it over to the Corinthian side. That is when the revolution started with the trial of Peithias, who was looking after Athenian interests in Corcyra as the leader of the democratic party. Peithias was then killed for trying to put to trial 5 of his very wealthy opponents. The people of Corcyra pursued the help of the Athenians. Attacks were being made on the democratic party by the people who held power in Corcyra. The democratic party then escaped to the mountains were they took shelter and fighting went on and off in that area. With all this happening, the Spartan fleet was approaching the Corcyraeans who were in a state of confusion with what was going on in the state and in the waters. Thus their decision was to arm their ships and go face the Peloponnesians in an unorganized way disregarding Athenian advice which told them to wait for support. Battles went on and the Peloponnesians had the upper hand and took control of many Corcyraean ships.
Later on, Athenian support of 60 ships arrived and drove the Peloponnesians away and allowed the Corcyraeans to take deal with issues of their land. Only then did chaos break loose since the plan was to kill the people conspiring against the democracy of the state, it turned to killing due to pure hatred reaching a state where a father killed his son and so on. This caused a chain reaction of revolutions in the cities of the Hellenic world. All the social standards changed. Those who waited things out and thought of the future were considered cowards, and those who acted instantly on aggression and instinct were perceived as great men. Degree of intelligence was measured on a scale of how clever the plot to kill someone is. Revenge was the language being spoken and family was just considered a weak tie. Moreover it became a general idea that settlement is not possible and that chaos will go on and on. The civil war in Corcyra became too drastic and the Athenian fleet abandoned the island of Corcyra and both the Athenians and the Spartans refused to take Corcyra under their wing. The Melians are a colony of Sparta. They have always been neutral concerning the war but when the Athenians brought in military support and started threatening to lay waste to their land, then the Melians became enemies of Athens. Now before doing any harm, the Athenians wanted to negotiate with the Melians. A debate began between the Athenians and the Melians. The Athenians told the Melians that if they wanted to save themselves from destruction they should consider joining the Athenian side. They make it clear that they have the right to the Greek empire after defeating the Persians, and the Melians haven’t been enemies of Athens before. They argue that this debate follows the rules of the jungle where the strong survives and the weak follow. The Melians replied that this isn’t much of an argument; instead it is more of cornering them into only caring about their self-interest which shows injustice. They also show that the Athenians should be afraid of the fall of a vast power like themselves since it would be a good example to the world. The Athenians make it clear that being neutral friends is not an option regardless of the Melians’ constant request to be so. They want to put Melos under their control and show that doing so will provide Melos with security and provide Athens with profit. However, the Melians won’t accept being slaves to the Athenians even when the Athenians said that controlling them is also of strategic significance since Melos is an island and the Athenians are rulers of the sea. The Athenians also try and persuade them by saying that surrendering is not a sign of weakness; it is in fact a sign of sensibility since they would be looking out for their own selves. When the Melians argue that hope is still there to help them stand up and defend themselves, the Athenians make a point by saying that hope is only useful when someone has something to fall back on, which in the case of the Melians is considered to be useless. Then the Melians turn to saying that as long as the gods are on their side, and they are standing up for what is right and what is wrong along with the Spartans then they have reason to be confident in themselves. In reply, the Athenians state that basically the gods are on their side since they are the stronger power and it is a rule of nature that the powerful rule what they can and that technically they are “following the rules”. The Athenians also argue that the Spartans only seek self-interest and that their relations with their allies are considered to be only in the Spartans’ interests and not the Melians’. To give evidence of this Spartan character they tell them that when the Spartans want to attack their neighbors they bring their entire fleet of allies with them. The Athenians then go on by saying that the Melians’ way of thinking that hoping for a bright future for Melos is purely insensible. They are risking their own safety and putting their resources in the hands of mere hope and a false sense of loyalty. Choosing between war and safety should not be based on arrogance but on common sense and logic. After that the Athenians withdrew from the debate and the Melians gave them their final decision. They (Melians) said that they will not give up their liberty to Athens and that their trust is in the fortune of the gods and in believing what is right and what is wrong and that being neutral friends is always an option. The Athenians were surprised by the Melians’ decision and told them that that it was a terrible mistake. After the representatives returned to Athens military decisions were made and the siege began on Melos. It was on and off with some resistance from the Melians. The Spartans saw that going on an expedition to invade the territory of Argos was not in their favor so they called it off. The siege became heavier on the Melians, and they eventually surrendered to the Athenians who then killed all the Melian men of military age and sold the woman and children as slaves. Athens then took control of Melos. By: Rakan Harmouche and Olfa Hichri Book 13 The account of his wanderings now finished, Odysseus looks forward to leaving Scheria. The next day, Alcinous loads his gifts on board the ship that will carry Odysseus to Ithaca. Odysseus sets sail as soon as the sun goes down. He sleeps the whole night, while the Phaeacian crew commands the ship. He remains asleep even when the ship lands the next morning. The crew gently carries him and his gifts to shore and then sails for home. When Poseidon spots Odysseus in Ithaca, he becomes enraged at the Phaeacians for assisting his nemesis. He complains to Zeus, who allows him to punish the Phaeacians. Just as their ship is pulling into harbor at Scheria, the prophecy mentioned at the end of Book 8 is fulfilled: the ship suddenly turns to stone and sinks to the bottom of the sea. The onlookers ashore immediately recognize the consummation of the prophecy and resolve to abandon their custom of helping wayward travelers. Back in Ithaca, Odysseus wakes to find a country that he doesn’t recognize, for Athena has shrouded it in mist to conceal its true form while she plans his next move. At first, he curses the Phaeacians, whom he thinks have duped him and left him in some unknown land. But Athena, disguised as a shepherd, meets him and tells him that he is indeed in Ithaca. With characteristic cunning, Odysseus acts to conceal his identity from her until she reveals hers. Delighted by Odysseus’s tricks, Athena announces that it is time for Odysseus to use his wits to punish the suitors. She tells him to hide out in the hut of his swineherd, Eumaeus. She informs him that Telemachus has gone in search of news of him and gives him the appearance of an old vagabond so that no one will recognize him. Book 14 Odysseus finds Eumaeus outside his hut. Although Eumaeus doesn’t recognize the withered traveler as his master, he invites him inside. There Odysseus has a hearty meal of pork and listens as Eumaeus heaps praise upon the memory of his former master, whom he fears is lost for good, and scorn upon the behavior of his new masters, the vile suitors. Odysseus predicts that Eumaeus will see his master again quite soon, but Eumaeus will hear none of it—he has encountered too many vagabonds looking for a handout from Penelope in return for fabricated news of Odysseus. Still, Eumaeus takes a liking to his guest. He puts him up for the night and even lets him borrow a cloak to keep out the cold. When Eumaeus asks Odysseus about his origins, Odysseus lies that he is from Crete. He fought with Odysseus at Troy and made it home safely, he claims, but a trip that he made later to Egypt went awry, and he was reduced to poverty. It was during this trip, he says, that he heard that Odysseus was still alive. Book 16 When Telemachus reaches Eumaeus’s hut, he finds the swineherd talking with a stranger (Odysseus in disguise). Eumaeus recounts Odysseus’s story and suggests that the stranger stay with Telemachus at the palace. But Telemachus is afraid of what the suitors might do to them. Eumaeus thus goes to the palace alone to tell Penelope that her son has returned. Before Eumaeus can give Penelope news of Telemachus’s return, the messenger from the ship arrives and informs the entire palace that Telemachus has returned. The suitors, dejected that their plot has failed, huddle outside to plan their next move. Antinous recommends putting Telemachus to death before he can call an assembly at which the suitors’ dirty schemes can be aired, but Amphinomus, one of the more thoughtful and well-behaved suitors, persuades the others to wait for a sign from the gods before doing anything so rash. Penelope later finds Antinous in the palace and denounces him for the plot against her son, the details of which Medon had overheard and revealed to her in Book 4. Eurymachus succeeds in calming Penelope down with his lies and false concern for the safety of Telemachus. Book 19 When the suitors retire for the night, Telemachus and Odysseus remove the arms as planned. Athena lights the room for them so that they can see as they work. Telemachus tells Eurycleia that they are storing the arms to keep them from being damaged. After they have safely disposed of the arms, Telemachus retires and Odysseus is joined by Penelope. She has come from the women’s quarters to question her curious visitor. She knows that he has claimed to have met Odysseus, and she tests his honesty by asking him to describe her husband. Odysseus describes the Greek hero—himself, capturing each detail so perfectly that it reduces Penelope to tears. He then tells the story of how he met Odysseus and eventually came to Ithaca. In many respects, this story parallels those that he told to Athena and Eumaeus in Books 13 and 14, respectively, though it is identical to neither. He tells Penelope that, essentially, Odysseus had a long ordeal but is alive and freely traveling the seas, and predicts that Odysseus will be back within the month. Penelope offers the beggar a bed to sleep in, but he is used to the floor, he says, and declines. Only reluctantly does he allow Eurycleia to wash his feet. As she is putting them in a basin of water, she notices a scar on one of his feet. She immediately recognizes it as the scar that Odysseus received when he went boar hunting with his grandfather Autolycus. She throws her arms around Odysseus, but he silences her while Athena keeps Penelope distracted so that Odysseus’s secret will not be carried any further. The faithful Eurycleia recovers herself and promises to keep his secret. Before she retires, Penelope describes to Odysseus a dream that she has had in which an eagle swoops down upon her twenty pet geese and kills them all; it then perches on her roof and, in a human voice, says that he is her husband who has just put her lovers to death. Penelope declares that she has no idea what this dream means. Rising to the challenge, Odysseus explains it to her. But Penelope decides that she is going to choose a new husband nevertheless: she will marry the first man who can shoot an arrow through the holes of twelve axes set in a line. Book 21 Penelope gets Odysseus’s bow out of the storeroom and announces that she will marry the suitor who can string it and then shoot an arrow through a line of twelve axes. Telemachus sets up the axes and then tries his own hand at the bow, but fails in his attempt to string it. The suitors warm and grease the bow to make it supple, but one by one they all try and fail. Meanwhile, Odysseus follows Eumaeus and Philoetius outside. He assures himself of their loyalty and then reveals his identity to them by means of the scar on his foot. He promises to treat them as Telemachus’s brothers if they fight by his side against the suitors. When Odysseus returns, Eurymachus has the bow. He feels disgraced that he cannot string it, because he knows that this failure proves his inferiority to Odysseus. Antinous suggests that they adjourn until the next day, when they can sacrifice to Apollo, the archer god, before trying again. Odysseus, still disguised, then asks for the bow. All of the suitors complain, fearing that he will succeed. Antinous ridicules Odysseus, saying that the wine has gone to his head and that he will bring disaster upon himself, just like the legendary drunken centaur Eurytion. Book 22 Before the suitors realize what is happening, Odysseus shoots a second arrow through the throat of Antinous. The suitors are confused and believe this shooting to be an accident. Odysseus finally reveals himself, and the suitors become terrified. They have no way out, since Philoetius has locked the front door and Eumaeus has locked the doors to the women’s quarters. Eurymachus tries to calm Odysseus down, insisting that Antinous was the only bad apple among them, but Odysseus announces that he will spare none of them. Eurymachus then charges Odysseus, but he is cut down by another arrow. Amphinomus is the next to fall, at the spear of Telemachus. Telemachus gets more shields and swords from the storeroom to arm Eumaeus and Philoetius, but he forgets to lock it on his way out. Melanthius soon reaches the storeroom and gets out fresh arms for the suitors. He isn’t so lucky on his second trip to the storeroom, however, as Eumaeus and Philoetius find him there, tie him up, and lock him in. A full battle now rages in the palace hall. Athena appears disguised as Mentor and encourages Odysseus but doesn’t participate immediately, preferring instead to test Odysseus’s strength. Volleys of spears are exchanged, and Odysseus and his men kill several suitors while receiving only superficial wounds themselves. Finally, Athena joins the battle, which then ends swiftly. Odysseus spares only the minstrel Phemius and the herald Medon, unwilling participants in the suitors’ profligacy. The priest Leodes begs unsuccessfully for mercy. Book 23 Eurycleia goes upstairs to call Penelope, who has slept through the entire fight. Penelope doesn’t believe anything that Eurycleia says, and she remains in disbelief even when she comes downstairs and sees her husband with her own eyes. Telemachus rebukes her for not greeting Odysseus more lovingly after his long absence, but Odysseus has other problems to worry about. He has just killed all of the noble young men of Ithaca—their parents will surely be greatly distressed. He decides that he and his family will need to lay low at their farm for a while. In the meantime, a minstrel strikes up a happy song so that no passers-by will suspect what has taken place in the palace. Penelope remains wary, afraid that a god is playing a trick on her. She orders Eurycleia to move her bridal bed, and Odysseus suddenly flares up at her that their bed is immovable, explaining how it is built from the trunk of an olive tree around which the house had been constructed. Hearing him recount these details, she knows that this man must be her husband. They get reacquainted and, afterward, Odysseus gives his wife a brief account of his wanderings. He also tells her about the trip that he must make to fulfill the prophecy of Tiresias in Book 11. The next day, he leaves with Telemachus for Laertes’ orchard. He gives Penelope instructions not to leave her room or receive any visitors. Athena cloaks Odysseus and Telemachus in darkness so that no one will see them as they walk through the town. Book 24 The scene changes abruptly. Hermes leads the souls of the suitors, crying like bats, into Hades. Agamemnon and Achilles argue over who had the better death. Agamemnon describes Achilles’ funeral in detail. They see the suitors coming in and ask how so many noble young men met their end. The suitor Amphimedon, whom Agamemnon knew in life, gives a brief account of their ruin, pinning most of the blame on Penelope and her indecision. Agamemnon contrasts the constancy of Penelope with the treachery of Clytemnestra. Back in Ithaca, Odysseus travels to Laertes’ farm. He sends his servants into the house so that he can be alone with his father in the gardens. Odysseus finds that Laertes has aged prematurely out of grief for his son and wife. He doesn’t recognize Odysseus, and Odysseus doesn’t immediately reveal himself, pretending instead that he is someone who once knew and befriended Odysseus. But when Laertes begins to cry at the memory of Odysseus, Odysseus throws his arms around Laertes and kisses him. He proves his identity with the scar and with his memories of the fruit trees that Laertes gave him when he was a little boy. He tells Laertes how he has avenged himself upon the suitors. Laertes and Odysseus have lunch together. Dolius, the father of Melanthius and Melantho, joins them. While they eat, the goddess Rumor flies through the city spreading the news of the massacre at the palace. The parents of the suitors hold an assembly at which they assess how to respond. Halitherses, the elder prophet, argues that the suitors merely got what they deserved for their wickedness, but Eupithes, Antinous’s father, encourages the parents to seek revenge on Odysseus. Their small army tracks Odysseus to Laertes’ house, but Athena, disguised again as Mentor, decides to put a stop to the violence. Antinous’s father is the only one killed, felled by one of Laertes’ spears. Athena makes the Ithacans forget the massacre of their children and recognize Odysseus as king. Peace is thus restored. The fact that Thucydides refers to himself in the third person is duly noted yet vaguely explained, as one only has mostly one basis -that of other fellow historians doing the same- to use as background for commentary. One could argue that perhaps it is done to highlight a certain distance between the author and the events, which, while being strikingly in line with the general tone of the writing, is still pure personal conjecture. This reference actually emphasizes Thucydides’ Athenian origins in a counter-productive manner, which is something the readers should keep well in mind as they get further along in the book. As a matter of fact, and all along the entirety of the first book, Thucydides repeatedly declares that what he considers most innovative about his documentation of the events is his self-claimed objectivity. One could not go a few paragraphs without being reminded of the mythical aspect of his ancestors’ recounting of historical events. Thucydides makes a point of declaring that he will not base his work on hearsay, nor will he overdramatize actual occurrences either by involving mystical entities (i.e. the gods) or by describing inconceivable happenings. He rather insists on his work being distinguishable for being a collection of multiple-perspective retellings of events and logical conclusions based upon facts that were in themselves verified and deemed true, or at least were the closest thing to the truth one could possibly get without having witnessed the event themselves. In other words, he identifies himself as being one of very few -if not the only- veritable truth-seeker out there. Most people, in fact, will not take the trouble in finding out the truth, but are much more inclined to accept the first story they hear. The War general-turned-historian then launches into a pages-long spiel depicting elements of previous widely known wars, battles or events that he claims were not as glorious as generally perceived. One of the battles he discusses comes close to the territory of this course, as Thucydides describes the numerous ways in which the Trojan War leaves something to be desired. He gives a few passing comments about Homer and the likes of him, poets that is, who deal in drama, in theatrics and the art of making up stories and immortalizing possibly mundane events simply through the telling and retelling and the “editing” of the stories through incorporating elements guaranteed to grab the Athenian spectator’s attention. Through this example Thucydides sheds light on the fact that what we now know as the Greek were never actually united before the events leading up to the Peloponnesian War. This is where he brings up Hellen, the man whose name then became a title for the Greeks altogether. The name Hellen is paramount in Thucydides’ work because it not only shows that there were numerous differences between the two Wars, but it also highlights the importance of there being a title for the union of the people in his times as opposed to whatever stories preceded him, i.e. the battles he undermines. All these kind of derogatory descriptions of the Persian War, The Trojan War and other battles as well as their documenters are there for two contextually crucial reasons: The first being that Thucydides would like his reader to know that no matter what was told or written before, the events of his own era – in other words, The Peloponnesian War- are actually the most glorious as of yet; The second being that, once again, he aims to amplify the objectivity upon which his work was founded, as well as the fact that his targets are people seeking the closest thing to the truth one could get, as opposed to those seeking entertainment or enchantment through reading a painted, modified, warped version of reality. The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest, but if it is judged worthy by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content. In fine I have written my work not as an essay with which to win the applause of the moment but as a possession for all time. Some might find it curious that Thucydides, for all his claims of objectivity, would try to convince the readers that as a matter of fact, what he documented is the greatest of all wars and battles, and maybe even the greatest story-telling, period. Then again, he does give a number of arguments that capture the attention and might make the readers wonder. These are numerous throughout Book One, and as stated earlier, the union of the people is one illustration of his reasoning. Another point worth noting is the psycho-humanitarian tone of the entirety of the text. Actually, setting the tone aside, it is explicitly declared that the history was written for the purpose of demonstrating human nature, which, in the author’s point of view is a constant. He actually says that his book was written to last for all time; that it was not only for the people of the day trying to get a clear idea of what actually transpired, it was in fact not even his main goal; his main goal was to create an eternal work that would last as long as Mankind persisted. My work is not a piece of writing designed to meet the needs of an immediate public, but was done to last forever. A very interesting point, seeing as the book is still studied with huge interest till this very day.
In a nutshell, Thucydides’ work was an attempt to write about the greatest War of all Time in an objective recounting that would last forever because it is centered on understanding Human nature which is unchanging. Although the introduction part is done, there are some points that one cannot help but bring up in this context: Concerning the Debate at Sparta, Thucydides plainly states that he was not present nor had he had any accurate retellings of the speeches, but he states that he will write the debate based upon what he believes should have been said and done in the situation; which brings up a question mark: Objectivity? The people speaking on behalf of Athens were no politicians or leaders, but merely there for a business or a trade, and yet their speech is so elaborate and compelling in its all-encompassing arguments that one begs the question again: how likely are regular people to have that much knowledge of the inner workings of not only the politics between the different present parties, but also of the human psyche? And say this knowledge and eloquence are due to the great importance Greeks gave to oratory arts, how likely are regular folks to intervene in matters of states while on foreign soil, if not to say enemy territory? The same issues present themselves again with the Mytelenian as well as the Melian debates; which makes us wonder whether these debates have ever actually occurred in real life, or if they were just there for the objective Thucydides had set for himself: describing human nature. Because, real or not, the debates actually give immeasurable perspective into the mentality and ideologies that every discussed party lived by; it gives great insight into the intricacies of strategy, of speech, of manipulation, of dealing with friend and dealing with foe…. These debates will be thoroughly discussed by the students in charge of them, but one last point to make would be that there is no political speech technique that we witness today that was not born in those ages, if not in that book and those speeches, so Thucydides might have had it right after all about human nature and its everlastingness. Badih Abdul Karim and George Oghgassian We pick up our odyssey of The Odyssey with Odysseus telling the Phaiakians the story of his wanderings. He begins by describing his home, the island of Ithaka, and all of the surrounding islands. Kalypso holds Odysseus captive, desiring him as her husband. Now, Odysseus speaks of the years in between Troy and Kalypso. First, he and his men arrive on the land of the Kikonians where they kill many, plunder and enslave the women. The Kikonians eventually fight back, killing a great number of Odysseus’ men. Those who escaped were subject to a Zeus-sent storm and had to linger until the storm passed. Ten days pass and Odysseus and his men are now on the island of the Lotus Eaters. There, three of his men eat lotus flowers, lose their memory of home and family and desire to stay on the island forever. Next, they go to the island of the Cyclopes, giant monsters with only one eye. Odysseus wants to treat the Cyclops like a human being, so they offer a sacrifice and wait for him to return to his cave. This hospitality (xenia) is a Greek custom. The Cyclops, Polyphemus, doesn't care about hospitality though. He questions Odysseus about their ship’s whereabouts, but Odysseus, quick on his feet, claims that Poseidon has shipwrecked them. Polyphemus then ate two of his men and sleeps. When he leaves to tend his flocks for the day, Odysseus devises a plan to escape. When he returns, Odysseus offers him wine and tells him that his name is “Nobody”. The Cyclops becomes intoxicated and passes out. It is now time for action: Odysseus and his men stab the Cyclops’ only eye with a sharpened pole, blinding him (this segment is described graphically). Odysseus and his men manage to escape from the cave and make their way to their ship when the Cyclops removes the big boulder blocking the exit of the cave. Polyphemus calls on his father, Poseidon, to avenge him. Odysseus finds it necessary to taunt the now-blind Cyclops as he and his men sail away; this enrages Polyphemus. He aims a giant rock at them but it flies over the ship. He proclaims, “Cyclops, if any mortal man ever asks you who it was that inflicted upon your eye this shameful blinding, tell him that you were blinded by Odysseus, sacker of cities.” (9.502-504). After hearing who did this to him, Polyphemus asks his father to curse Odysseus. Poseidon’s curse causes Odysseus to wander about aimlessly for ten years. Had Odysseus not revealed himself, he would have made it home earlier. However, Odysseus’ ego got the better of him; he wanted every one to know who blinded the Cyclops. He was prideful which has had a tendency to get him into trouble. From there, Odysseus (and his men) travel to Aeaea, home of the witch-goddess Circe. Circe advises him to travel to the Underworld and ask Teiresias (the dead, blind prophet) the way he should follow to get back to Ithaka. He made offerings to attract the dead according to Circe’s instructions. The first to appear was Elpenor, one of Odysseus’ men. He died after falling from Circe’s roof. His spirit requests proper rites when Odysseus and his men return to Aeaea as to not remain in an “intermediary stage”. Next to appear was Odysseus’ mother, whom he now finds out is dead. Before he could speak to her, however, Odysseus is distracted by the coming of Teiresias. Teiresias’ words are a warning: he tells Odysseus that he will find his way home but will find trouble there. He will kill the suitors for their insolence. Then, he must go inland and pray to Poseidon for forgiveness. Odysseus' mother, Antikleia, tells him of the situation back home: she herself had died (obviously), Telemachos is growing up but helpless against the suitors and Penelope is still faithful to him.
When she leaves, Odysseus speaks to a long list of princesses. At this point, Odysseus pauses in his narratives. Queen Arete, impressed with all he had recounted, decides Odysseus should be given many gifts when he is sent on his way. King Alkinoös asks Odysseus if he met any old friends of his who died at Troy, to which Odysseus speaks of his encounters with Agememnon and Achilles. Agememnon is understandably resentful of women (for it was his wife who killed him) except for Penelope; Achilles, in a nutshell, hates that he is dead. When he leaves the Underworld, Circe advises Odysseus to get past the Sirens whose songs lure sailors into their island’s coastal reefs. Next they must avoid the Clashing Rocks, Rovers, which only Argonauts’ ship ever escaped. After this, Odysseus should then hug the cliff of Scylla and sacrifice six men rather than risk losing his whole ship to Charybdis. King Alkinoös is so moved by Odysseus’ tale of his journey that he promises him guest gifts. So, Odysseus receives gifts, something he is always seeking, from the King and Queen. There are many references to gift giving and hospitality, depicting the theme of tradition and custom, especially xenia. Hosts are expected to be welcoming and guests should be courteous and not a burden. Once he gets on the ship, the homesick Odysseus falls into a sleep “most like death” (13.80-81). The ship finally reaches Ithaka. Ironically, he never sees his homecoming because he is asleep. He does not even know he is there. After seeing Odysseus reach home safely, Poseidon complains to Zeus. Zeus reminds Poseidon that he is a god and can punish whomever he wants, so Poseidon turns the Phaiakian’s ship to stone. While Odysseus is asleep, Athena produces a gray mist to hide Odysseus. When Odysseus wakes up, he has no idea where he is; he thinks the Phaiakians had deceived him. He proceeds to curse them, a strange thing considering their hospitality. Athena, now disguised as a boy, approaches Odysseus. He asks boy-Athena where he is, to which boy-Athena tells him Ithaka. Odysseus narrates a very elaborate lie: he was on the run from Crete for killing Orsilochos, a man of swift foot. Athena is highly amused by the tall tale and reveals herself. She also calls him a master liar (which is a good thing in ancient Greece). It is not clear why he is lying, however. He may be lying because he enjoys it or to lead people astray. Odysseus is pleased to find out that Athena, contrary to his beliefs, had not abandoned him after Troy. Athena confirms to him that the land is in fact Ithaka by scattering the mist. Odysseus is joyful: he kisses the sand on the beach. They hide treasures and start planning revenge. Athena disguises him as a beggar and orders him to go to the swineherd and questions him, while she goes to Sparta to retrieve his son Telemachos. The suitors, according to Athena, were “eating all your substance away” (13.396). It highlights the suitors’ bad xenia. Odysseus goes to the swineherd and sees the number of pigs has reduced hugely since the arrival of the suitors. Eumaios, the swineherd, is offended by the suitors. He said, “Eat now, stranger, what we serving men are permitted to eat: young pigs, but the fattened swine are devoured by the suitors, who have no regard for anyone in their minds, no pity.” (14.81-82). Eumaios welcomes Odysseus and feeds him. We find out how extremely loyal to Odysseus he is here: he would rather be a slave of a dead Odysseus than go back to his family; this faithfulness is extreme for obvious reasons. Eumaios mourns his master next. Odysseus promises him that his master will return, but Eumaios does not believe him. Eumaios asks beggar-Odysseus where he came from; Odysseus weaves yet another detailed lie. Eumaios is on to beggar-Odysseus though; he does not believe him. He claims to know the exactness of Odysseus’ fate: the gods hated him so much that they didn’t allow him to die in Troy, in battle, but rather on his way home, so that he would not get fame. He also declares that he was only hosting the beggar for fear of Zeus’ reprisal. The next day, during breakfast, beggar-Odysseus sees someone on his way to the house and tells Eumaios. Eumaios realizes it is Telemachos and greeted him like a son of his; he loves him very much. Evidently, Telemachos greets beggar-Odysseus like he would a stranger. It’s striking that Odysseus saw his only son greet his swineherd like he would a father and greet himself like he would a stranger. Telemachos asks the swineherd about his mother to which Eumaios responds that she weeps every day and night. Telemachos asks Eumaios to keep beggar-Odysseus in his home while he provides him with clothes and food. Athena calls Odysseus over to her, and she tells him that he should reveal himself to his son so they can fight the suitors together. When Odysseus goes back into the house, Telemachos is shocked by his transformation and presumes him to be a god. He reveals that he is not a god but rather his father. In sum, two significant points stand out in this story. Odysseus is always able to get what he wants using his cunningness and deception. Also, Xenia as a custom and tradition is a main theme of Homer’s The Odyssey and a major part of Greek culture. |
AuthorThis class journal is composed by the students of CVS 201, Section 3. Archives
December 2015
Categories |